Halting The Pendulum: Imperative Of Finality In Judicial Eligibility
“Halting The Pendulum: Imperative Of Finality In Judicial Eligibility” is a recent article by Rishabh Tyagi critiquing the ongoing policy swings in India’s district judiciary recruitment rules. It calls for a permanent resolution to the debate over requiring three years of Bar practice for eligibility.
The piece traces how Supreme Court rulings, like the 1993 All India Judges’ Association case mandating three years’ practice, were later reversed in 2002 to allow fresh law graduates after training, amid concerns over talent drain to corporate jobs. This back-and-forth has caused recruitment paralysis, especially in states like Madhya Pradesh during 2023–2025, violating candidates’ legitimate expectations and worsening judicial vacancies.
Article 233 of the Constitution requires seven years’ practice for direct District Judge appointments, but Article 234 leaves subordinate judiciary rules to states, enabling disparities. Law Commission reports (116th–118th) debated practice vs. academic merit, fueling the pendulum effect Tyagi decries.
Such vacillation erodes trust in the judiciary, stalls trials, and burdens aspirants financially and psychologically. Tyagi urges policymakers to fix a clear, unchangeable rule now, echoing the doctrine of finality that prioritizes stability in judicial decisions. This aligns with Supreme Court emphasis on conclusive rulings to uphold the rule of law.
